FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 9388847
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Bruce Wanzo, Jr. v. Christian Pfeiffer

No. 9388847 · Decided April 3, 2023
No. 9388847 · Ninth Circuit · 2023 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
April 3, 2023
Citation
No. 9388847
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 3 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRUCE WANZO, Jr., No. 20-56072 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05764-JLS-SP v. CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden, MEMORANDUM* Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 30, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: McKEOWN, GOULD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Bruce Wanzo, Jr. appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that it was untimely pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 2244(d)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm. Wanzo does not contest the district court’s dismissal of his claims challenging his 1990 conviction as untimely and has therefore forfeited any objection to the dismissal of those claims. See Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc., 797 F.2d 727, 738 (9th Cir. 1986). Wanzo failed to raise any constitutional challenge to the Los Angeles County Superior Court’s 2019 denial of his request for resentencing under former section 1170.95 of the California Penal Code1 in his federal habeas petition. Nor did he raise any such challenge in response to a show cause order of the magistrate judge, in his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, or in his motion for a Certificate of Appealability (COA). Therefore, Wanzo has forfeited any such challenge, and we affirm on that basis. See White v. Klitzkie, 281 F.3d 920, 921–22 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny as moot Wanzo’s motion for judicial notice of his state court records, Dkt 25. AFFIRMED. 1 The statute was renumbered as section 1172.6 of the California Penal Code. 2
Plain English Summary
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRUCE WANZO, Jr., No.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRUCE WANZO, Jr., No.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Bruce Wanzo, Jr. v. Christian Pfeiffer in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on April 3, 2023.
Use the citation No. 9388847 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →